Tag: income inequality

Beware the Bipartisan Legion of Doom: Corporate Democrats and Trump’s GOP

Posted on by kathiemm
“Unlike their predecessors on the mat,” writes Eidelson, “today’s Legion of Doom don’t rely on brute strength and frightening visages to subdue opponents. Rather, their seeming stranglehold on our politics comes from the bottomless wealth of the self-serving 1% and from the use of manipulative narratives.” (Image: Wrestlefest/Screengrab)

by Roy Eidelson

In professional wrestling circles, the “Legion of Doom” is a name that conjures up the fearsome physiques and painted faces of one of the great tag teams of all time. In the political arena today, the same moniker aptly describes an even more daunting and dangerous duo: the profits-over-people corporate wing of the Democratic Party and the belligerent, bigoted, and brutal GOP of Donald Trump. There’s really no better way to describe a pairing that literally imperils our democracy and our planet at the same time.

The foundation for this forbidding alliance—”bipartisanship” at its worst—is simple. Both of these powerhouses are beholden to the same benefactors: an assortment of status-quo-defending behemoths that includes Wall Street, the oil and gas industry, health insurance companies, Big Pharma, military contractors, and mainstream media conglomerates. They therefore share the same no-holds-barred commitment: making sure that progressive victories are few and far between.

Of course, unlike their predecessors on the mat, today’s Legion of Doom don’t rely on brute strength and frightening visages to subdue opponents. Rather, their seeming stranglehold on our politics comes from the bottomless wealth of the self-serving 1% and from the use of manipulative narratives—”political mind games”—designed to mislead us about what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible.

“Both of these powerhouses are beholden to the same benefactors: an assortment of status-quo-defending behemoths that includes Wall Street, the oil and gas industry, health insurance companies, Big Pharma, military contractors, and mainstream media conglomerates. They therefore share the same no-holds-barred commitment: making sure that progressive victories are few and far between.”

As a psychologist, I’ve studied these propaganda appeals. The ones that tend to be most effective in confusing and misdirecting us target five core concerns that govern how we make sense of the world—namely, issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Each is linked to a basic question, like this.

First, are we safe? The Legion of Doom are ready with the answers that best serve their corporate backers. Sometimes that means fearmongering about how progressive policies will threaten our wellbeing. Encouraging panic over Medicare for All fits the bill—even though tens of millions of Americans lack the health insurance they need. At other times, they instead offer unfounded assurances to allay our legitimate fears. Thus, they falsely insist—contrary to scientific data—that the destructive consequences of climate change are overblown and no cause for alarm.

Second, are we being treated fairly? Here the Legion of Doom are quick to prey on our uncertainties about right and wrong. One frequent ploy revolves around disingenuous claims that they’re fighting for justice. Corporate school reformers become ultra-wealthy entrepreneurs by promising to help underprivileged children, and massive defense contractors fill their coffers by posing as defenders of human rights. Another ploy involves misleading arguments in which shameful injustices—unconscionably extreme inequality, astronomical CEO salaries—are portrayed as the just outcomes of so-called free markets.

Third, who should we trust? Our doubts in this arena are soft targets for the Legion of Doom’s manipulative appeals. So they tell us that particular groups—perhaps communities of color, or immigrants, or those who are poor—are “different” and that their grievances are best viewed with suspicion. And they warn us that progressives and other critics of the status quo are purportedly dishonest, misguided, or misinformed—despite overwhelming evidence that the current system rewards the few by depriving the many.

Fourth, are we good enough? Often the Legion of Doom aim to win our loyalty with deceitful declarations that everyone benefits from the greed-driven pursuits they present as high-minded endeavors. They defend health insurance giants with false notions of protecting “choice,” and they promote anti-labor “right to work” laws with cunning tributes to “freedom.” At the same time, they depict dissenters as unappreciative and “un-American”—even though alternative policies like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal are broadly popular and would improve countless lives.

And fifth, can we control what happens to us? Here the Legion of Doom turn our concerns about helplessness to their advantage. Sometimes they duplicitously insist that transformative changes—a living wage for all, an end to homelessness, healthcare as a human right—are pipe dreams impossible to achieve due to unconquerable forces. At other times, they instead warn us that a progressive agenda will jeopardize our autonomy, as though returning power to the people would be a step away from—rather than toward—greater democracy.

All of these manipulative mind games (and more) are central to the Legion of Doom’s 2020 electoral strategy. Establishment Democrats have already unleashed them in an effort to undermine progressive primary candidates at every level—most notably against Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. If he and others nonetheless emerge victorious, the GOP is patiently waiting its turn before November’s general election. They’re ready with a second barrage of these propaganda ploys, all aimed at wrestling our hopes for meaningful change into submission.

But another round of potentially catastrophic Legion of Doom victories doesn’t have to be our destiny. This status-quo-defending, donkey-and-elephant tag team—committed to continued self-aggrandizement rather than solidarity with those who have less—can be defeated. First, by resisting and debunking their misleading appeals, and by helping others to do the same. Second, by offering an honest and compelling alternative narrative, one with the straightforward message that insecurity, mistreatment, and crushed aspirations shouldn’t be a routine part of so many lives. And third, by building a coalition of Americans that’s large enough, diverse enough, and fearless enough to show the Legion of Doom that their domination of our politics is over. As Bernie Sanders said at a recent debate, quoting Nelson Mandela, “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”

Roy Eidelson is the former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility. His latest book is Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible.

This essay was first published on Common Dreams Views, Tuesday, March 03, 2020.
Work published on Common Dreams is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Psychology’s “Dark Triad” and the Billionaire Class, Part 3

Posted on by kathiemm

by Roy Eidelson

SOURCE: Roy Eidelson

The Bottom Line

Let’s revisit the notion that the widespread misery and shattered dreams associated with today’s extreme inequality can be overcome by following the lead of the one-percent. Clearly, the deeply-entrenched Dark Triad tendencies among the super-rich should caution us against taking this path. After all, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism aren’t the qualities one looks for in a reliable and trustworthy guide.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize two countervailing considerations. First, not everyone who’s exceedingly wealthy displays this disturbing trio of psychological traits, or routinely engages in the antisocial behaviors associated with them. Second, there’s obviously no requirement that you have to be rich in order to be an obnoxious narcissist who lacks compassion and exploits other people.

But these caveats don’t alter the fundamental reality: there are members of the one-percent who do act upon their Dark Triad inclinations and impulses. That’s a serious problem because their extraordinary wealth gives them tremendous influence over our laws, our politics, and our public square — and they’re eager and able to use their power and resources to pursue a self-serving agenda at the expense of the common good.

Psychology matters in another way as well. As part of their efforts, these one-percenters use an assortment of psychological appeals to mislead us about what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible. These manipulative “mind games” include a wide range of deceptive claims: change is dangerous; concerns over inequality are overblown; hard times hit those who don’t measure up; the wealthy are the ones being mistreated; critics of the super-rich are misguided and misinformed; the wealthy deserve the public’s trust; one-percenters have earned their enormous wealth and power; critics of the billionaire class are un-American; change is impossible; and the one-percent aren’t to blame for society’s problems. Debunking these and similar appeals — and inoculating ourselves and others against them — is therefore a necessary step in successfully challenging a status quo that prioritizes the few over the many.

There’s a popular account, perhaps fictitious, about an exchange between writers F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. Fitzgerald purportedly wrote, “The rich are different from you and me” — and Hemingway replied, “Yes, they have more money.” Some members of the billionaire class would like us to believe it’s really that simple. But it appears the truth may actually be much darker.

Roy Eidelson

Roy Eidelson, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist, president of Eidelson Consulting, and a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility.

In Print: Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible

Online: royeidelson.com

Political Mind Games: The Kavanaugh File

Posted on by kathiemm

James Earle Fraser’s statue The Contemplation of Justice, which sits on the west side of the United States Supreme Court building, on the north side of the main entrance stairs. The sculpture was installed in 1935. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: Mark Wade.

By Roy Eidelson, PhD

When it comes to preserving their extraordinary wealth and power, the 1% count on manipulating the public’s understanding of what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible. My research shows that their favorite “mind games” often target our doubts and concerns in five domains: vulnerability (Are we safe?), injustice (Are we being treated fairly?), distrust (Who can we trust?), superiority (Are we good enough?), and helplessness (Can we control what happens to us?).

One-percenters are most accustomed to using deceitful yet psychologically persuasive appeals to control the narrative about big-picture issues ranging from domestic policy to national security. But in recent days, we’ve seen them turn to the same playbook in an effort to quell the controversy generated by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee h Let’s consider several examples.

Source: U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (public domain)

Vulnerability. The 1%’s “It’s a False Alarm” mind game is typically used to downplay the societal harms caused by their self-serving priorities. Regardless of the evidence, they insist that adverse events—such as the ravages of climate change—are greatly exaggerated. So too in the Kavanaugh context. For instance, GOP operative Gina Sosa dismissively argued, “Tell me, what boy hasn’t done this in high school?” Similarly, conservative evangelist Franklin Graham claimed, even if the allegations are true, “There wasn’t a crime that was committed.”

Injustice. With the “We’re the Victims” mind game, one-percenters assert that they’re targets of mistreatment rather than perpetrators of wrongdoing. This artful role-reversal is witnessed whenever economic inequality takes center stage. That’s when they complain about receiving unfair criticism for billionaire tax cuts and no appreciation for the hard work that supposedly made them so wealthy. GOP Senators have employed this turnabout tactic in their defense of Kavanaugh. Lindsey Graham referred to the allegations as “a drive-by shooting” and Bob Corker lamented, “I can’t imagine the horror of being accused of something like this.”

Distrust. Another recurring mind game of the 1% is “They’re Devious and Dishonest.” Here, they assert that those who oppose their agenda—low-wage workers, prison reformers, anti-war activists—are deceitful and unworthy of the public’s trust. Their efforts to discredit Kavanaugh’s accuser are no different. Senator Orrin Hatch claimed that Dr. Ford’s allegation “reeks of opportunism”and President Trump tweeted: “If the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents.”

Superiority. In this domain, a favorite mind game of one-percenters is “Pursuing a Higher Purpose.” They insist that tainted actions—such as the torture of war-on-terror prisoners—must be evaluated within the context of the greater good and America’s enduring exceptionalism. In similar fashion, Kavanaugh’s defenders insist that his behavior from decades ago should be taken in stride. Conservative columnist Dennis Prager contended that the charges should be ignored because he’s “led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family, and commitment to community that few Americans can match.” And Senator Hatch argued, “I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today… Is this judge a really good man? …By any measure he is.”

Helplessness. Finally, with the “Resistance Is Futile” mind game, the 1% send a clear message to friend and foe alike: We’re in charge and that’s never going to change. Sometimes they drive this point home with threats; at other times, they turn to naked assertions of authority. Powerful defenders of the status quo regularly rely on this appeal when their policies—or their preferred candidates—are challenged. So it’s no surprise that Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell offered this reassurance to a Values Voters Summit audience: “In the very near future Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court…Don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re going to plow right through it.”

Other manipulative mind games also tap into issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. But these five examples should be sufficient to demonstrate a key point. There are striking and disturbing parallels between the 1%’s broad, ongoing assault on our democracy and their targeted maneuvers aimed at overcoming serious, legitimate questions about Brett Kavanaugh’s suitability for the Supreme Court. In both the war and the battle, they know that psychologically compelling appeals to our core concerns can carry the day—even when they’re as flimsy as a conman’s promises. That is, unless we’re ready for them.

Roy Eidelson, P.h.D., has been a practicing clinical, research, and political psychologist for over thirty years. His new book is titled Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible. Roy’s work focuses on “psychology for progressive purposes”—applying psychological knowledge to issues of social justice and social change. He is the former executive director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania and a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, an organization that works to address a range of pressing issues including poverty, racism, militarism, and climate change. He is also a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, where along with colleagues he has been an outspoken advocate in opposing torture and restoring psychology’s commitment to do-no-harm ethics.

Note from Kathie MM: Regarding the image for Dr. Eidelson’s post, I think it is all too sadly relevant that the person contemplating justice is a woman.  What connections do you make in this regard? (I think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)